In the post WWII period, Christian "realists" such as Reinhold Niebuhr, developed a modern strategic framework that sought to introduce American leaders to the harsher realities of international politics that included a thermo-nuclear component.
Niebuhr's realism did not believe that liberal Christianity could maintain a pacifist stand on every issue that appeared on the international stage. In fact, it was Niebuhr's that aided my own thought immediately following 9/11.
According to Niebuhr, "Whatever may be the moral ambiguities of the so-called democratic nations, and however serious may their failure to conform perfectly to their democratic ideals, it is sheer moral perversity to equate the inconsistencies of a democratic civilization with the brutalities which modern tyrannical states practice."
September 11 challenged my own pacifist leanings. I supported the president and his subsequent actions in Afghanistan, but have been opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq since its inception. It seems the ethical question that America has been unwilling to authentically ask: Did 9/11 change everything?
The implied response, based on the nation's action is yes. But are we going down a path that, in the long-term, is in the best interest of the country?
In a scathing analysis earlier this year, Archbishop Desmond Tutu urged President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to apologize for the creation of an immoral war in Iraq.
While participating in a lecture series, Tutu stated: "How wonderful if politicians could bring themselves to admit they are only fallible human creatures and not God and thus by definition can make mistakes. Unfortunately, they seem to think that such an admission is a sign of weakness. Weak and insecure people hardly ever say 'sorry'."
I suspect that Tutu realizes that the best one can hope for by way of an apology from the president may have been his recent lament for the utterance of the testosterone induced statement: "Bring 'em on."
War inherently brings with it an immoral aspect. Just war theory notwithstanding, Sherman was right when he simply stated: "War is hell." Thus, I am not surprised at the torture at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. I am shocked, however, at our political leaders willingness to justify it.
Hopefully, time will reveal (I don't have much confidence when the Pentagon investigates itself) whether or not Haditha is the unwanted stepchild of the My Lai massacre. But the floodgates were open to the potential of immoral behavior the moment we began to implement "shock and awe." Again, such actions are based on the presupposition that 9/11 changed everything.
If 9/11 did change everything, is it simply the price of doing business that roughly 2,500 US soldiers were killed, nearly 18,000 wounded, and countless numbers of Iraqis have died, while several hand-picked companies--beneficiaries of no bid contracts--line their pockets on the spoils of tragedy and miscalculation?
Is the desire for the perception of safety worth the debt that is mounting, the reckless way the current administration has combined borrowing and tax cuts along with supplemental request to Congress that don't allow for an accurate assessment of war costs?
It might be a good time to ask: where are on we in the amorphous war on terror? The majority of the cargo that enter our ports remains unchecked; Congress fights over an immigration policy that is designed more to rally the conservative base for the November mid-term election than a serious national security threat.
Has anyone noticed that the "legitimate" effort in Afghanistan is spiraling out of control? The violence has increased, the poppies are in full bloom, and the Taliban is making a comeback. With resources and focus redirected toward Iraq, Afghanistan is ebbing toward its own little quagmire.
To assume that we can temporarily ignore our very own democratic traditions by advocating illegal wiretapping, torturing the enemy, or engaging in an unnecessary war because that is what one does in a war on terror is foolhardy at best. It also moves us closer to the doctrine of fascism.